Exploring working conditions as determinants of job satisfaction: an

This article was downloaded by: [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. MarinGarcía]
On: 19 July 2011, At: 10:56
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Service Industries Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fsij20
Exploring working conditions as
determinants of job satisfaction: an
empirical test among Catalonia service
workers
a
b
Juan A. Marin-García , Tomas Bonavia & Josep Maria Losilla
c
a
ROGLE- Dept. Organización de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica
de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
b
Department de Psicología Social, Universitat de Valencia,
Valencia, Spain
c
Department de Psicobiologia i de Metodologia de les CC. de la
Salut, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Available online: 19 Jul 2011
To cite this article: Juan A. Marin-García, Tomas Bonavia & Josep Maria Losilla (2011): Exploring
working conditions as determinants of job satisfaction: an empirical test among Catalonia service
workers, The Service Industries Journal, 31:12, 2051-2066
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.559226
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
The Service Industries Journal
Vol. 31, No. 12, Septemper 2011, 2051 –2066
Exploring working conditions as determinants of job satisfaction:
an empirical test among Catalonia service workers
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
Juan A. Marin-Garcı́aa∗ , Tomas Bonaviab and Josep Maria Losillac
a
ROGLE- Dept. Organización de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain;
b
Department de Psicologı́a Social, Universitat de Valencia, Valencia, Spain; cDepartment de
Psicobiologia i de Metodologia de les CC. de la Salut, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
Barcelona, Spain
(Received 12 July 2010; final version received 26 January 2011)
Job satisfaction is particularly important in the service industries since it involves direct
contact with customers and thus has a direct influence on company performance. This
paper analyses the impact of 10 working conditions on job satisfaction by means of
structural equation modeling in a representative stratified random sample of 1553
service sector employees in Catalonia, Spain. Significant effects in social aspects
(recognition of a job well done and social support) were found, followed by
psychological loads (emotional demands and job insecurity) and by task contents
(development and meaning, and predictability). These variables explained 50% of
the variance in job satisfaction.
Keywords: working conditions; job satisfaction; service sector; structural equation
modeling; job characteristics; service workers
Introduction
The work environment of the majority of current occupations in developed countries is
characterized by an increase in complexity, more team work, polyvalence, decentralized
decision making, the use of sophisticated technology, growth in competition, and the
necessity to reduce costs (Noblet, Teo, McWilliams, & Rodwell, 2005; Tortosa-Edo,
Sanchez-Garcia, & Moliner-Tena, 2010; Tummers, Landeweerd, & Van Merode, 2002).
These factors generate an increase in the psychological pressure created in the workplace
(de Jonge et al., 2001; Tummers et al., 2002). The psychosocial factors are determined by
the specific characteristics of the job (work organization, demands, task content, and social
aspects) that determine the conditions of the working environment and have the ability to
affect the wellbeing of the worker as much as the progress of the work in hand (Martı́n
Garcı́a, Luceño Moreno, Jaén Dı́az, & Rubio Valdehita, 2007; Tummers et al., 2002).
In fact, psychosocial factors are becoming more important as an explanatory variable of
worker wellbeing than physical work requirements (Morrison, Cordery, Girardi, &
Payne, 2005; Noblet et al., 2005; Shiu & Yu, 2010).
The service sector is now an important part of the economy, both in terms of turnover
as well as in the number of people it employs (Lee, Olson, Lee, Hwang, & Shin, 2008;
Li, Yang, & Wu, 2008). In this type of company, in which the employee/customer relationship (either face-to-face or via technology) is increasingly important, the relationship
between working conditions and job satisfaction is more marked than in other sectors
∗
Corresponding author. Email: jamarin@omp.upv.es
ISSN 0264-2069 print/ISSN 1743-9507 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2011.559226
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2052
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
(Al Juhani & Kishk, 2006; Paulin, Ferguson, & Bergeron, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002).
Within the service sector, a positive association has been found between job satisfaction
and company efficiency (Brown & Lam, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2008; Coelho, Augusto,
Coelho, & Sa, 2010; Ekinci & Dawes, 2009; Iglesias, 2009; Li et al., 2008; Noblet
et al., 2005).
The objective of this paper was therefore to study working conditions in the service
sector (demands, job insecurity, influence, development and meaning, social support,
role clarity, quality of leadership, predictability, and esteem) and to examine their relative
and joint effects on job satisfaction.
In this study, we used quite a large representative stratified random sample (N ¼ 1553)
consisting of service workers from Catalonia, Spain. An additional motive was to adapt for
the service sector previously used broad models that had combined data from construction,
service, and industry (Kil, Leffelsend, & Metz-Gockel, 2000; Pires, Sarkar, &
Carvalho, 2008).
This study extends previous lines of investigation published in the literature in a relatively under-investigated field (Tummers et al., 2002). The relationship between working
conditions and job satisfaction is now thought to be more complicated than has been
indicated in the literature (Morrison et al., 2005). Also, further studies with sizeable heterogeneous sample groups (multiple companies with different activities) are necessary to
simultaneously incorporate different independent variables (Schyns & Croon, 2006).
In our study, we used a heterogeneous representative transversal sample of a population
that had not been previously analyzed in this way, which gives strength to the replication
and assessment of models (Brown & Lam, 2008; de Jonge et al., 2001; Roelen, Koopmans,
& Groothoff, 2008; Schyns & Croon, 2006). Our sample size also allowed us to increase
the number of explanatory variables and to apply a rigorous methodology (structural
equation modeling) (ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006; Karsh, Booske, & Sainfort, 2005;
Roelen et al., 2008; Tummers, Van Merode, & Landeweerd, 2006).
We believe that our project also has a practical interest, in that it can be used by
companies to design and adapt jobs (Brown & Lam, 2008; Chen & Chen, 2008) and
thus provides service sector managers with information that could help them to prioritize
those changes with the most positive impact on improving job satisfaction.
Satisfaction at work
Satisfaction in the workplace can be defined as a positive emotional orientation toward work.
It is the result of the perception that the task undertaken is consistent with the values of
workers and contributes to the satisfaction of their personal needs (Al Juhani & Kishk,
2006; Brown & Lam, 2008; Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Noblet et al., 2005). When it
comes to establishing an operative definition for this concept, various strategies have been
used. Some authors have considered it in terms of a global factor, while others have separated
it into different job facets, such as intrinsic, extrinsic, salary, interpersonal relationships,
development, etc. (Al Juhani & Kishk, 2006; Brough, 2005; Brown & Lam, 2008).
In the recent literature on job satisfaction, there is abundant evidence that this variable
contributes to improving both worker performance and company results (Hsu & Wang,
2008; Hung & Wong, 2007; Ritter & Anker, 2002; Snipes, Oswald, LaTour, & Armenakis,
2005; Taris, Schreurs, Eikmans, & van Riet, 2008; Tian & Pu, 2008), especially in the
service sector (Brown & Lam, 2008; Kuo, 2007; Li et al., 2008; Lim, Ribeiro, & Lee,
2008; Linz, 2003; Love, Irani, Standing, & Themistocleous, 2007; Noblet et al., 2005;
Scott, Gravelle, Simoens, Bojke, & Sibbald, 2006; Shiu & Yu, 2010). Other studies
The Service Industries Journal
2053
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
consider satisfaction as a dependent variable which is expressed in terms of specific conditions in the organizational context. However, a considerable amount of work remains to
be done before researchers can propose, or validate, realistic and complete models of the
way that workers experience work conditions and how this affects their level of satisfaction (Hsu & Wang, 2008; Petrescu & Simmons, 2008).
Working conditions
A job consists of one or more functions (each function comprised a group of tasks or
activities) undertaken by a person in a company at a given time (Cascio, 1989), with
certain characteristics and is influenced by a number of psychosocial factors (De Rijk,
Nijhuis, & Alexanderson, 2009; ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006; Hackman & Oldham,
1980; Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge, & Bakker, 2003; de Jonge et al., 2001; Karatepe &
Kilic, 2009; Love et al., 2007; Noblet, Graffam, & McWilliams, 2008; Schyns &
Croon, 2006; Sparr & Sonnentag, 2008; Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Tummers et al.,
2002; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008; Yang, 2009). For
workers to perform at their maximum level, it is necessary that they should have or
acquire the knowledge, abilities, and aptitudes necessary for the completion of the tasks
in hand. However, it is also necessary that their personality, interests, and desires fit in
with the characteristics of the work in such a way that they experience meaning and
they get satisfaction from the job they are doing (de Jong, van der Velde, & Jansen, 2001).
The most frequently studied variables in the literature are psychological demands,
influence, and social support (Hackman & Oldham, 1980; Karasek et al., 1998; Love
et al., 2007; Morrison et al., 2005; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002). Psychological demands (certain authors have named this ‘workload’) are an indicator of the difficulty of the task in relation to the mental or emotional load, work speed or overload, but
does not take into account physical loads, risks, or ergonomics. Influence (certain authors
refer to it as ‘control’, autonomy, or active work) refers to the fact that workers are able to
decide certain questions on their own. Social support refers to all possible levels of social
relations at work, with both colleagues and superiors. In general, it is considered that
psychological demands are negatively associated with job satisfaction, while the ability
to influence one’s job and social relationships are aspects that contribute to job satisfaction
(Karsh et al., 2005; Noblet et al., 2005; Tummers et al., 2002).
However, it is still necessary to increase the number of explanatory variables to consider the realities of the modern workplace and roles (Morrison et al., 2005), and to clarify
the degree to which each job characteristic relates to satisfaction levels (de Jonge et al.,
2001). In relation to this, other working conditions used in previous research, albeit
with lower frequency, are: job insecurity, the meaning of the tasks undertaken, role
clarity, quality of leadership, predictability, and recognition of a job well done (Hsu &
Wang, 2008; Karasek et al., 1998; Moncada Lluis, Llorens Serrano, Font Corominas,
Galtes Camps, & Navarro Gine, 2008; Tummers et al., 2002; Uppal, 2005; Wakkee,
Elfring & Monaghan, 2008).
Objectives and hypothesis
The purpose of this paper is to establish a framework that allows us to understand how
service sector working conditions can be used to reinforce job satisfaction.
To this end, we have set out the model we intend to test in Figure 1. This model integrates the contributions of various studies commented in the theoretical framework (Hsu &
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2054
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
Figure 1. Integrating model of the effect of working conditions on job satisfaction.
Wang, 2008; Karsh et al., 2005; Kristensen, Hannerz, Hogh, & Borg, 2005; Moncada Lluis
et al., 2008; Moncada, Llorens, Navarro, & Kristensen, 2005; Tummers et al., 2002).
We can summarize this model with the following hypothesis:
H1: Quantitative demands have a negative effect on job satisfaction.
This factor is defined as the relationship between work demands and the availability of
time to cope with the work to be done. If there is not enough time, the demands present
themselves as a fast work pace, the impossibility of completing the task in hand, or the
accumulation of work, and can also be related to the irregular time distribution of tasks.
The Service Industries Journal
2055
As previous research has shown (de Jonge et al., 2001; Sanchis-Palacios & Ribeiro, 2010;
Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Yu, Gu, Zhou, & Wang, 2008), quantitative demands have a
significant negative impact on job satisfaction.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
H2: Emotional demands have a negative effect on job satisfaction.
This type of demand affects our feelings and hence we need to keep them hidden in the
workplace. This situation frequently occurs when services are offered to the public in
which only professional abilities are exercised and personal feelings are left to one side.
Previous research shows that emotional demands have a significant negative impact on
job satisfaction (de Jonge et al., 2001; Sanchis-Palacios & Ribeiro, 2010; Van den
Broeck et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2008).
H3: Job insecurity has a negative effect on job satisfaction.
It refers to contractual insecurity (the fear of losing one’s job) and insecurity surrounding
other conditions at work. There is evidence that working under contract for a limited time
rather than in a permanent position has a strong impact on job satisfaction. Likewise, the insecurity surrounding other conditions at work (changes in shift patterns, salary, or career path)
are negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Janus, Amelung, Gaitanides, & Schwartz,
2007; Martı́nez Navarro, 2008; Moncada Lluis et al., 2008; Zarafshani & Alibaygi, 2009).
H4: Influence has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This factor is defined as the extent of the control that workers have over their jobs:
sequence, amount of work, methods to be used, and tasks to be undertaken. A positive
relationship appears in the research between job satisfaction and influence (Chen &
Chen, 2008; ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006; de Jong et al., 2001; Petrescu & Simmons,
2008; Roelen et al., 2008; Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002).
H5: Development and meaning has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This refers to the evaluation of whether a job provides opportunities for the development of personal abilities and knowledge and whether workers can relate their work role to
their values or end results other than simply utilitarian ones (to have one’s time occupied
and to obtain a reward for work completed). Between these two variables (which we
deal with as if they were only one), the ability for personal development probably has
the most weight (Chen & Chen, 2008; de Jong et al., 2001; Kuokkanen, Suominen,
Harkonen, Kukkurainen, & Doran, 2009), but the meaning of work has also found
support in the literature (Ritter & Anker, 2002).
H6: Social support has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This variable is defined as the possibility of being able to have social relationships in
the workplace and to receive whatever help is necessary at any given moment from either
colleagues or superiors. Significant relationships have been found in this area between
managers and staff support and job satisfaction (de Jonge et al., 2001; Noblet et al.,
2005; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Wakkee et al., 2008).
H7: Role clarity has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This factor has to do with clearly defined job descriptions: limits, objectives, tasks to
be undertaken, and expectations. Tummers et al. (2002), Karsh et al. (2005), Sakires,
Doherty, and Misener (2009), and Albion, Fogarty, Machin, and Patrick (2008) found
this effect in their studies.
H8: Quality of leadership has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
2056
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
This variable refers to the extent that managers plan work well in advance and
maintain good communications with employees. Several authors have found the effect
of this variable on job satisfaction (Choi, Seo, Scott, & Martin, 2010; Gonzalez &
Garazo, 2006; Lopez-Cabarcos, Vazquez-Rodriguez, & Montes-Pineiro, 2010; Moncada
et al., 2010; Moncada, Llorens, & Kristensen, 2004; Rooney, Gottlieb, & Newby-Clark,
2009; Sellgren, Ekvall, & Tomson, 2008; Shiu & Yu, 2010; Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, &
Guzman, 2010).
H9: Predictability has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This refers to the availability of appropriate, sufficient, and timely information to adapt
to any changes that may affect work. Moncada et al. (2004), Mohr and Wolfram (2010),
and Stetz, Castro, and Bliese (2007) found evidence for this effect.
H10: Esteem has a positive effect on job satisfaction.
This factor is defined as the recognition of a job well done. Van den Broeck et al.
(2008), Linz (2003), Stocker, Jacobshagen, Semmer, and Annen (2010), and Srivastava
and Rangarajan (2008) obtained significant effects for this variable on job satisfaction.
Methodology
Study sample
The data analyzed comes from ‘The First Survey of Working Conditions in Catalonia’
(Martı́nez Navarro, 2008). The target population consisted of all service sector employees
in Catalonia affiliated to groups of more than one person in the National Insurance System
(1,370,369 people).
A stratified random sampling by company size (four levels), gender (two strata), and
activity sector (four strata) was applied. The sample size was fixed at 1553 persons. The
questionnaire was answered by workers via an interview at their home, with reference to
the job they were doing at the time of the interview. In those cases where the employee
was not at home, or refused to participate, s/he was substituted by another person from
the same sector, similar company size, and gender. The global sample error was 1.8%,
with values between 4.7 and 5.4% for the activity subsector, between 2.8 and 5.6% for
company size, and between 2.4 and 2.7% for gender (Martı́nez Navarro, 2008). The
study sample can, therefore, be considered as high quality and representative of the
entire population of service workers. The demographic characteristics of the study
sample are given in Table 1.
Measurements
The questionnaire contains 64 questions and can be answered fully in approximately
30 min. For the purposes of this paper, we will use only the 34 variables relating to
working conditions and job satisfaction. The complete questionnaire can be consulted
in Martı́nez Navarro (2008).
Job satisfaction was measured by only one item (‘In general, to what degree do you
feel satisfied by your working conditions?’), with four response levels (1, very satisfied;
2, satisfied; 3, dissatisfied; 4, very dissatisfied). The strategy of measuring the global satisfaction level by only one item has previously been used in different studies (Hsu &
Wang, 2008; de Jonge et al., 2001; Petrescu & Simmons, 2008; Roelen et al., 2008)
and is considered to be equally valid and reliable as the measurement of job satisfaction
by scales (Brown & Lam, 2008).
The Service Industries Journal
2057
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study sample.
N (%)
Sample error (%)
Gender
Male
Female
620 (39.9)
933 (60.1)
2.4
2.7
Age
16– 24
25– 34
35– 44
45– 54
55– 64
.64
213 (13.7)
507 (32.6)
329 (21.2)
322 (20.7)
173 (11.1)
9 (0.6)
Company size
,6
6–49
50– 249
.249
190
542
323
498
(12.2)
(34.9)
(20.8)
(32.1)
5.6
2.8
3.7
3.5
Activity sector
Public administration/Banking∗
Commerce/Catering trade†
Social services‡
Other services}
339
455
347
412
(21.8)
(29.3)
(22.3)
(26.5)
5.4
4.7
5.4
4.9
∗
Public
†
administration, defense department, social security, banking and finance, insurance companies.
Wholesale and retail trade, catering/hotel management trade.
‡
Research, education, health and social services and associated activities.
}
Travel, transport, post office, telecommunications, environmental and industrial cleaning, sport and leisure.
Working conditions were measured in the Catalonian survey by the questionnaire PSQ
CAT21-COPSOQ, the short-format version in Catalan language of CoPsoQ (‘Copenhagen
Psychosocial Questionarie’; Kristensen et al., 2005; Moncada et al., 2005). All the items of
the working conditions constructs had five response categories: ‘5, always/often/sometimes/rarely/1, never’. The items were grouped into 10 factors representative of the dimensions of the working conditions (see Table 2).
Analysis
A full latent structural model (Byrne, 2006) with maximum likelihood method was used for
parameter estimation with structural equations programme (EQS; Bentler, 2002; Ullman &
Bentler, 2004). Job satisfaction was introduced as a latent variable with a single-item
indicator setting unstandardized variance error to non-zero value (standard deviation2 ×
(1 2 worst a Cronbach of other constructs)), considering that this indicator seems unlikely
to perfectly estimate the construct (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Brown, 2006).
Furthermore, the analyses were adjusted for gender, age, and company size (ter Doest &
de Jonge, 2006; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Since these adjustments did not improve the
accuracy of the results, we report results only from the final model without these variables.
We used several parameters to assess the goodness-of-fit of the model: normed x2 ,
5; CFI (comparative fit index) .0.90; GFI (Lisrel fit indice) .0.85; and RMSEA (rootmean-square error of approximation) ,0.08 (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1999;
Spreitzer, 1995; Tari, Molina, & Castejón, 2007; Ullman & Bentler, 2004). We will
Item
Description
Cronbach’s a
Quantitative demands
34.a
Do you have to work very fast?
34.b
Is your workload unevenly distributed so it piles up?
34.cInv How often do you not have time to complete all your work tasks?
0.51
Emotional demands
34.d
34.e
34.f
Does your work require that you hide your feelings?
Is it hard for you to forget the problems of your work?
Is your work emotionally demanding?
0.71
Job insecurity
40.a
40.b
40.c
40.d
Are
Are
Are
Are
0.78
Influence at work
35.a
35.b
35.c
35.d
35.e
Can you influence the amount of work assigned to you?
Is it your opinion taken into account when the boss assigns you your work?
Can you influence the order in which you perform your tasks?
Can you decide when to take a break?
If you have a personal or family matter to attend to, can you leave your place of work for at least an hour without having to ask special
permission?
0.71
Development & Meaning 36.a
36.b
36.c
36.d
36.e
Does your work require you to take the initiative?
Do you have the possibility of learning new things through your work?
Do you feel committed to your work?
Is your work meaningful?
Do you enjoy telling others about your place of work?
0.77
Social support
38.a
38.b
38.cInv
38.d
How often do you get help and support from your colleagues?
How often do you get help and support from your immediate superior?
Is your workplace not isolated from your peers?
Do you feel part of a community at your place of work?
0.76
Role clarity
37.a
37.b
Do you know exactly what degree of autonomy you have in your work?
Do you know exactly which areas are your responsibilities?
0.55
Quality of leadership
38.e
38.f
To what extent would you say that your immediate superior is good at work planning?
To what extent would you say that your immediate superior communicate well with workers?
0.77
Predictability
37.c
37.d
At your place of work, are you informed well in advance concerning changes for the future?
Do you receive all the information you need in order to do your work well?
0.74
Esteem
39.a
39.b
39.c
Do your superiors give you the recognition you deserve?
In difficult situations, do you get the necessary support from your superiors?
If you think about all the work and effort you have made, do you think you receive proper recognition for your work?
0.88
you worried
you worried
you worried
you worried
about
about
about
about
it being difficult for you to find another job if you became unemployed?
being transferred to another job against your will?
your working hours being changed against your will?
your salary being changed?
Note: Item numbers ending with ‘Inv’ were reverse coded.
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
Factor
2058
Table 2. Working condition factors (Moncada et al., 2004, 2005; Nübling, Stössel, Hasselhorn, Michaelis, & Hofmann, 2006).
The Service Industries Journal
2059
Table 3. Correlation between constructs.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
(1)
(1) Quantitative
demands
(2) Emotional
demands
(3) Job insecurity
(4) Influence at
work
(5) Development
& Meaning
(6) Social support
(7) Role clarity
(8) Quality of
leadership
(9) Predictability
(10) Esteem
(11) Job satisfaction
∗∗
(2)
(3)
(4)
–
0.00
–
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
–
0.42∗∗
–
0.00
20.22∗∗
0.18∗∗
0.02
20.22∗∗
0.15∗∗ 20.04
0.58∗∗
–
20.21∗∗ 20.16∗∗ 20.26∗∗ 0.30∗∗ 0.40∗∗
–
–
20.18∗∗ 20.18∗∗ 20.20∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.47∗∗ 0.38∗∗
20.41∗∗ 20.32∗∗ 20.05 0.35∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.58∗∗ 0.41∗∗
–
–
20.44∗∗ 20.34∗∗ 20.23∗∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.35∗∗ 0.51∗∗ 0.61∗∗ 0.72∗∗
–
20.36∗∗ 20.33∗∗ 20.16∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.45∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.37∗∗ 0.74∗∗ 0.58∗∗
20.38∗∗ 20.33∗∗ 20.21∗∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.39∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.31∗∗ 0.57∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.65∗∗
1%.
also check that the values of Cronbach’s a of each construct are greater than 0.6 (Hair
et al., 1999; Lin, 2006).
Results
A preliminary step in the analysis of the full latent structural model is to first test for the
validity of the measurement model (Bagozzi, 1994; Byrne, 2006; Hair et al., 1999; Hogan
& Martell, 1987). The values for goodness-of-fit of each of the constructs are adequate.
The Cronbach a of all factors but role clarity and quantitative demands are greater than
the recommended cut-off value (see Table 2). Most of the correlations between working
conditions were low or moderate but significant (see Table 3).
After checking the validity of the measurement model, the relationship between
working conditions and job satisfaction was evaluated using the full latent structural
model (Figure 1). The correlations between the explanatory variables were included in
the full latent structural model but are not showed in Figure 2 for clarity (see Table 3).
We can globally consider it as a good fit (normed x2 ¼ 3.62; CFI ¼ 0.88; GFI ¼ 0.89;
and RMSEA , 0.042). All observed variables had significant loadings ranging from
0.31 to 0.88 (p , 0.001) on their latent factor. A reliable measurement model was thus
obtained. Working conditions together explain nearly 50% of the variance in job satisfaction. The positive and significant effects on job satisfaction are esteem (0.40), predictability (0.17), development and meaning (0.15), and social support (0.13). Emotional demands
(20.13) and job insecurity (20.06) have a negative significant effect. In our global
service sample, quantitative demands, role clarity, influence, and quality of leadership
have no significant effects (see Figure 2).
Discussion
Regarding our first three hypothesis, the previously published investigation had identified
the negative impact of psychological loads (emotional demands, job insecurity, and quantitative demands) on job satisfaction. The correlation values showed in previous literature
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2060
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
Figure 2. Full latent structural model of the relationships between working conditions on job satisfaction. The correlations between the explanatory variables are included in the model but are not
showed in the figure for clarity. Coefficients represent standardized estimates. Significance for
effects in the structural model: +10%; ∗ 5%; ∗∗ 1%.
are between 20.13 and 20.30 (Brough, 2005; ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006; Moncada Lluis
et al., 2008; Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002; Van den Broeck et al.,
2008). Our correlation data are in line with previous research. The structural model
reinforces these results and identifies negative and significant effects from emotional
demands and job insecurity on job satisfaction. However, it fails to find effects from quantitative demands. This may be due to the lack of internal consistency of the scale used, and
it is suggested to analyze in detail this scale in future research, for example, by reformulating the item V34.cInv or by adding new items.
On the other hand, influence on decisions has been positively correlated with job satisfaction in various papers, with significant values between 0.18 and 0.34 (ter Doest & de
Jonge, 2006; de Jong et al., 2001; Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002;
Van den Broeck et al., 2008). The correlation value obtained in our sample (0.33) is
more or less in line with these results. However, in the structural model, the effect did
not appear to be significant, coinciding with Linz (2003), but disagreeing with the
results of other studies, in which it was found to be significant (Petrescu & Simmons,
2008; Thompson & Prottas, 2006). This result rejects our H4. It is possible that, as indicated by Schyns and Croon (2006), the tasks in end-workers of some services are not
especially motivating or attractive, nor can they be easily enriched by adding influence.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
The Service Industries Journal
2061
Social support is another factor that is well referenced in the literature. Its correlation with
job satisfaction appears to be clear, with values between 0.31 and 0.53 (ter Doest & de Jonge,
2006; de Jong et al., 2001; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Thompson & Prottas, 2006; Tummers
et al., 2002). Our work supports the findings of previous papers, confirming the positive,
significant correlation (0.46), as well as the significant effect in the structural model.
H7 is another rejected hypothesis which appears to be significant in other papers (Karsh
et al., 2005; Tummers et al., 2002), but is not seen to be significant in ours. One of
the reasons would be the low reliability of the scale, like in H1 rejection. But also,
Nielsen and Cleal (2010) have been found that role clarity does not to predict satisfaction
at work.
It could be thought surprisingly that quality of leadership was not seen to be significant
in the structural model (rejecting our hypothesis 8), despite having a moderate correlation
with job satisfaction (0.57). Boshoff and Mels (1995) found that the main aspects of
quality of leadership (initiating structure or consideration) does not directly influence satisfaction, but does so indirectly by reducing role conflict. Therefore, it is recommended for
future research to analyze models including some of our variables as mediating variables
(Cicero, Pierro, & van Knippenberg, 2010; Lopez-Cabarcos et al., 2010).
The correlations we obtained between job satisfaction and development and meaning
(0.39), or esteem (0.65) are in line with those obtained by Van den Broeck et al. (2008).
We also found high correlations of predictability (0.53) (Zacharatos, Hershcovis, Turner,
& Barling, 2007). Their effects on job satisfaction have also been seen to be significant in
the structural model (Linz, 2003). Our findings support previous research regarding the
relationship between esteem and satisfaction generalizing the results obtained in armed
forces (Stocker et al., 2010) or sales forces (Srivastava & Rangarajan, 2008) in other
industries.
To sum up, hypotheses H2, H3, H5, H6, H9, and H10 were confirmed with our data.
In our study, the working conditions that most affect job satisfaction appear to be concentrated in social aspects (esteem and social support), followed by psychological loads
(emotional demands and job insecurity) and, to a lesser extent but still with significant
effects, by task contents (development and meaning and predictability). Our results thus
appear to be in line with those of various other authors (Noblet et al., 2005; Schyns &
Croon, 2006; Tummers et al., 2002; Uppal, 2005).
Lastly, the explained variance of our model (50%), is in line with previous published
research, such as 54% in Roelen et al. (2008) or the 53% of Karsh et al. (2005), both of
which used samples of only one occupational subsector, and goes beyond Thompson
and Prottas (2006), where the job characteristics explain the 33% variance in satisfaction.
On the other hand, in those papers where the relationships between working conditions and
employees’ psychological reactions (such as job satisfaction, for example) are analyzed,
the variance explained by the models tends to be low. This is due to the fact that the
variance of the dependent variable is not excessive, meaning we are therefore dealing
with a sample with a high level of job satisfaction (Tummers et al., 2006).
Other lines of research suggested by our findings would be: (1) to check whether the
effect of working conditions on job satisfaction, as shown by workers in the service sector,
is replicated in other representative samples of employees in industrial or construction settings; (2) to analyze the effect of organizational characteristics as a mediator or moderator
in the relationships between working conditions and satisfaction, and to analyze models of
mediation between working conditions to detect direct and indirect effects (Morrison et al.,
2005; Tummers et al., 2006); and (3) a more detailed investigation of the questionnaire
measurement model (COPSOQ short form) would be needed to eliminate the limitations
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2062
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
of some of the subscales (Roelen et al., 2008), especially role clarity and quantitative
demands.
One of the limitations of our research is that the sample was taken from only one
Spanish region (Catalonia), so that the results cannot be extended to the whole of Spain
or other countries. Another limitation is that all data were based on self-reporting; moreover, the data are cross-sectional and the temporal sequence of the relationships between
the variables cannot be clearly evaluated. With this in mind, we should be cautious when
interpreting the relationships as causal. It should also be said that most of these limitations
are common to other papers published in this field (ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006; Noblet
et al., 2005; Schyns & Croon, 2006; Tummers et al., 2006).
Conclusions
Job satisfaction is an important variable in all types of companies, but even more so in the
service sector. Our research makes diverse contributions to the literature on the subject,
amongst others: it expands upon recent research by other authors (Brown & Lam, 2008;
Noblet et al., 2005; Tummers et al., 2006); it uses a sample size big enough to simultaneously include a wide number of explicative factors (10 working conditions) (Karsh
et al., 2005); and it analyzes them using rigorous methodology in the form of structural
equation modeling (Alves & Raposo, 2009; ter Doest & de Jonge, 2006).
This provides both academics and service sector companies with a greater understanding and calibration of the effect of working conditions on job satisfaction. In this way,
service companies can make better decisions when modifying the characteristics that
have the greatest impact on job satisfaction. The greatest effect would be obtained by providing social support in hard times and by superiors giving recognition for work well done.
Similar effects would be obtained from the general support provided by work colleagues
and bosses, possibly facilitating group work. Job satisfaction could also be improved
through better work organization and allowing employees to express their emotions.
Finally, providing information to employees on any changes that may affect their work
and their future is another important element in achieving satisfaction at work.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant PSI2010-16270 from the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Innovation. We also thank the Department of Labour of the Government of
Catalonia for their permission to use the data of I-ECTC. The translation of this paper
was funded by the Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain.
References
Al Juhani, A.M., & Kishk, N.A. (2006). Job satisfaction among primary health care physicians and
nurses in Al-madinah Al-munawwara. Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 81,
165–180.
Albion, M.J., Fogarty, G.J., Machin, M.A., & Patrick, J. (2008). Predicting absenteeism and turnover
intentions in the health professions. Australian Health Review, 32, 271–281.
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in higher education.
The Service Industries Journal, 29, 203–218.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994). Structural equation models in marketing research: Basic principles. Principles
of marketing research (pp. 317–385). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
The Service Industries Journal
2063
Bentler, P.M. (2002). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Boshoff, C., & Mels, G. (1995). A causal model to evaluate the relationships among supervision, role
stress, organizational commitment and internal service quality. European Journal of
Marketing, 29, 23–42.
Brough, P. (2005). A comparative investigation of the predictors of work-related psychological wellbeing within police, fire and ambulance workers. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34,
127–134.
Brown, S.P., & Lam, S.K. (2008). A meta-analysis of relationships linking employee satisfaction to
customer responses. Journal of Retailing, 84, 243–255.
Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Byrne, B. (2006). Structural equation modelling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cascio, W. (1989). Managing human resources: Productivity, QWL, profits. London: McGraw-Hill.
Chen, H.F., & Chen, Y.C. (2008). The impact of work redesign and psychological empowerment on
organizational commitment in a changing environment: An example from Taiwan’s stateowned enterprises. Public Personnel Management, 37, 279–302.
Choi, Y.S., Seo, M.H., Scott, D., & Martin, J. (2010). Validation of the organizational culture assessment instrument: An application of the Korean version. Journal of Sport Management, 24,
169–189.
Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and uncertainty: How role
ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21, 411–421.
Coelho, F.J., Augusto, M.G., Coelho, A.F., & Sa, P.M. (2010). Climate perceptions and the customer
orientation of frontline service employees. The Service Industries Journal, 30, 1343–1357.
De Rijk, A., Nijhuis, F., & Alexanderson, K. (2009). Gender differences in work modifications and
changed job characteristics during the return-to-work process: A prospective cohort study.
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19, 185–193.
ter Doest, L., & de Jonge, J. (2006). Testing causal models of job characteristics and employee wellbeing: A replication study using cross-lagged structural equation modelling. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 499–507.
Ekinci, Y., & Dawes, P.L. (2009). Consumer perceptions of frontline service employee personality
traits, interaction quality, and consumer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 29,
503–521.
Gonzalez, J.V., & Garazo, T.G. (2006). Structural relationships between organizational service
orientation, contact employee job satisfaction and citizenship behavior. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 17, 23–50.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1999). Análisis de datos multivariante (4th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hogan, E.A., & Martell, D.A. (1987). A confirmatory structural equations analysis of the job characteristics model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 242–263.
Houkes, I., Janssen, P.P.M., de Jonge, J., & Bakker, A.B. (2003). Specific determinants of intrinsic
work motivation, emotional exhaustion and turnover intention: A multisample longitudinal
study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 427–450.
Hsu, S.-H., & Wang, C. (2008). The development and empirical validation of the Employee
Satisfaction Index model. Total Quality Management, 19, 353–366.
Hung, H., & Wong, Y.H. (2007). Organisational perception of customer satisfaction: Theories and
evidence. The Service Industries Journal, 27, 495–507.
Iglesias, V. (2009). The attribution of service failures: Effects on consumer satisfaction. The Service
Industries Journal, 29, 127–141.
Janus, K., Amelung, V.E., Gaitanides, M., & Schwartz, F.W. (2007). German physicians ‘on strike’
– Shedding light on the roots of physician dissatisfaction. Health Policy, 82, 357–365.
de Jong, R.D., van der Velde, M.E.G., & Jansen, P.G.W. (2001). Openness to experience and growth
need strength as moderators between job characteristics and satisfaction. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 350–356.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2064
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
de Jonge, J., Dormann, C., Janssen, P.P.M., Dollard, M.F., Landeweerd, J.A., & Nijhuis, F.J.N.
(2001). Testing reciprocal relationships between job characteristics and psychological wellbeing: A cross-lagged structural equation model. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 74, 29–46.
Karasek, R., Kawakami, N., Brisson, C., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Arnick, B. (1998). The job
content questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of
psychosocial job characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 322–354.
Karatepe, O.M., & Kilic, H. (2009). The effects of two directions of conflict and facilitation on frontline employees’ job outcomes. The Service Industries Journal, 29, 977–993.
Karsh, B., Booske, B.C., & Sainfort, F. (2005). Job and organizational determinants of nursing home
employee commitment, job satisfaction and intent to turnover. Ergonomics, 48, 1260–1281.
Kil, M., Leffelsend, S., & Metz-Gockel, H. (2000). Diagnostic use of the job diagnostic survey (JDS)
in a revised and extended version for organizations and employees in the service and administration sector. Zeitschrift fur Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie, 44, 115–128.
Kristensen, T.S., Hannerz, H., Hogh, A., & Borg, W. (2005). The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire-a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment.
Scand J Work Environ Health, 31, 438–449.
Kuo, C.M. (2007). The importance of hotel employee service attitude and the satisfaction of international tourists. The Service Industries Journal, 27, 1073–1085.
Kuokkanen, L., Suominen, T., Harkonen, E., Kukkurainen, M.L., & Doran, D. (2009). Effects of
organizational change on work-related empowerment, employee satisfaction, and motivation.
Nursing Administration Quarterly, 33, 116–124.
Lee, S.M., Olson, D.L., Lee, S.H., Hwang, T., & Shin, M.S. (2008). Entrepreneurial applications of
the lean approach to service industries. The Service Industries Journal, 28, 973–987.
Li, J.M., Yang, J.S., & Wu, H.H. (2008). Improving service quality and organisation performance
through human resource practices. A case study. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 19, 969–985.
Lim, S., Ribeiro, D., & Lee, S.M. (2008). Factors affecting the performance of entrepreneurial
service firms. The Service Industries Journal, 28, 1003–1013.
Lin, W.B. (2006). The exploration of employee involvement model. Expert Systems with
Applications, 31, 69–82.
Linz, S.J. (2003). Job satisfaction among Russian workers. International Journal of Manpower, 24,
626–652.
Lopez-Cabarcos, M.A., Vazquez-Rodriguez, P., & Montes-Pineiro, C. (2010). Bullying at work:
Psychological antecedents and consequences on job satisfaction. Revista Latinoamericana
de Psicologia, 42, 215–224.
Love, P.E.D., Irani, Z., Standing, C., & Themistocleous, M. (2007). Influence of job demands, job
control and social support on information systems professionals’ psychological well-being.
International Journal of Manpower, 28, 513–528.
Martı́n Garcı́a, J., Luceño Moreno, L., Jaén Dı́az, M., & Rubio Valdehita, S. (2007). Relación entre
factores psicosociales adversos, evaluados a través del cuestionario multidimensional Decore,
y salud laboral deficiente. Psicothema, 19, 95–101.
Martı́nez Navarro, J. (2008). Primera enquesta de condicions de treball de Catalunya. Barcelona:
Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament de Treball, Direcció General de Relacions Laborals.
Mohr, G., & Wolfram, H.J. (2010). Stress among managers: The importance of dynamic tasks, predictability, and social support in unpredictable times. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 15, 167–179.
Moncada, S., Llorens, C., & Kristensen, T.S. (2004). Método istas-21(CoPsoQ). Manual para la
evaluación de riesgos psicosociales en el trabajo. Barcelona: Instituto Sindical del Trabajo
Ambiente y Salud.
Moncada, S., Llorens, C., Navarro, A., & Kristensen, T.S. (2005). ISTAS21: Versión en lengua castellana del cuestionario psicosocial de Copenhague (COPSOQ). Archivos de Prevención y
Riesgos Laborales, 8, 18–29.
Moncada, S., Petersen, J.H., Navarro, A., Llorens, C., Burr, H., Hasle, P., & Bjorner, J.B. (2010).
Psychosocial work environment and its association with socioeconomic status. A comparison
of Spain and Denmark. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38, 137–148.
Moncada Lluis, S., Llorens Serrano, C., Font Corominas, A., Galtes Camps, A., & Navarro Gine, A.
(2008). Psychosocial risk exposure among wage earning population in Spain (2004–05):
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
The Service Industries Journal
2065
Reference values of the 21 dimensions of COPSOQ ISTAS21 questionnaire. Revista
Española de Salud Pública, 82, 667–675.
Morrison, D., Cordery, J., Girardi, A., & Payne, R. (2005). Job design, opportunities for skill utilization, and intrinsic job satisfaction. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 14, 59–79.
Nielsen, K., & Cleal, B. (2010). Predicting flow at work: Investigating the activities and job characteristics that predict flow states at work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15,
180–190.
Noblet, A., Graffam, J., & McWilliams, J. (2008). Sources of well-being and commitment of staff in
the Australian Disability Employment Services. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16,
137–146.
Noblet, A., Teo, S.T.T., McWilliams, J., & Rodwell, J.J. (2005). Which work characteristics predict
employee outcomes for the public-sector employee? An examination of generic and occupation-specific characteristics. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 16,
1415–1430.
Nübling, M., Stössel, U., Hasselhorn, H.-M., Michaelis, M., & Hofmann, F. (2006). Measuring
psychological stress and strain at work: Evaluation of the COPSOQ Questionnaire in
Germany. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 3, 1–14.
Paulin, M., Ferguson, R.J., & Bergeron, J. (2006). Service climate and organizational commitment:
The importance of customer linkages. Journal of Business Research, 59, 906–915.
Petrescu, A.I., & Simmons, R. (2008). Human resource management practices and workers’ job satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 29, 651–667.
Pires, C.P., Sarkar, S., & Carvalho, L. (2008). Innovation in services – how different from manufacturing? The Service Industries Journal, 28, 1339–1356.
Ritter, J.A., & Anker, R. (2002). Good jobs, bad jobs: Workers’ evaluations in five countries.
International Labour Review, 141, 331–358.
Roelen, C.A.M., Koopmans, P.C., & Groothoff, J.W. (2008). Which work factors determine job satisfaction? Work, 30, 433–439.
Rooney, J.A., Gottlieb, B.H., & Newby-Clark, I.R. (2009). How support-related managerial behaviors influence employees: An integrated model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24,
410–427.
Sakires, J., Doherty, A., & Misener, K. (2009). Role ambiguity in voluntary sport organizations.
Journal of Sport Management, 23, 615–643.
Sanchis-Palacios, J.R., & Ribeiro, D. (2010). Contingency factors on the success of services for
social integration and job placement schemes. The Service Industries Journal, 30, 339–357.
Schyns, B., & Croon, M.A. (2006). A model of task demands, social structure, and leader-member
exchange and their relationship to job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17, 602–615.
Scott, A., Gravelle, H., Simoens, S., Bojke, C., & Sibbald, B. (2006). Job satisfaction and quitting
intentions: A structural model of British general practitioners. British Journal of Industrial
Relations, 44, 519–540.
Sellgren, S.F., Ekvall, G., & Tomson, G. (2008). Leadership behaviour of nurse managers in relation
to job satisfaction and work climate. Journal of Nursing Management, 16, 578–587.
Shiu, Y.M., & Yu, T.W. (2010). Internal marketing, organisational culture, job satisfaction, and
organisational performance in non-life insurance. The Service Industries Journal, 30,
793–809.
Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders’ well-being, behaviours and
style associated with the affective well-being of their employees? A systematic review of
three decades of research. Work and Stress, 24, 107–139.
Snipes, R.L., Oswald, S.L., LaTour, M., & Armenakis, A.A. (2005). The effects of specific job satisfaction facets on customer perceptions of service quality: An employee-level analysis.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 1330–1339.
Sparr, J.L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions of supervisor feedback, LMX, and
employee well-being at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
17, 198–225.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace – dimensions, measurement,
and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442–1465.
Downloaded by [UPVA Universidad Politecnica de], [Juan A. Marin-García] at 10:56 19 July 2011
2066
J.A. Marin-Garcia et al.
Srivastava, R., & Rangarajan, D. (2008). Understanding the salespeople’s ‘feedback-satisfaction’
linkage: What role does job perceptions play? Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
23, 151–159.
Stetz, M.C., Castro, C.A., & Bliese, P.D. (2007). The impact of deactivation uncertainty, workload,
and organizational constraints on reservists’ psychological well-being and turnover intentions. Military Medicine, 172, 576–580.
Stocker, D., Jacobshagen, N., Semmer, N.K., & Annen, H. (2010). Appreciation at work in the Swiss
armed forces. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 117–124.
Tari, J.J., Molina, J.F., & Castejón, J.L. (2007). The relationship between quality management practices and their effects on quality outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research, 183,
483–501.
Taris, T.W., Schreurs, P.J.G., Eikmans, K.J.L., & van Riet, P. (2008). Work characteristics, wellbeing and organizational performance: An organizational-level test of the happy-productive
worker hypothesis. Gedrag & Organisatie, 21, 3–18.
Thompson, C.A., & Prottas, D.J. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 11, 100–118.
Tian, X.Z., & Pu, Y.J. (2008). An artificial neural network approach to hotel employee satisfaction:
The case of China. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 467–482.
Tortosa-Edo, V., Sanchez-Garcia, J., & Moliner-Tena, M.A. (2010). Internal market orientation and
its influence on the satisfaction of contact personnel. The Service Industries Journal, 30,
1279–1297.
Tummers, G.E.R., Landeweerd, J.A., & Van Merode, G.G. (2002). Work organization, work characteristics, and their psychological effects on nurses in the Netherlands. International Journal of
Stress Management, 9, 183–206.
Tummers, G.E.R., Van Merode, G.G., & Landeweerd, J.A. (2006). Organizational characteristics as
predictors of nurses’ psychological work reactions. Organization Studies, 27, 559–584.
Ullman, J.B., & Bentler, P.M. (2004). Structural equation modeling. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman
(Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 431–458). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Uppal, S. (2005). Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. International Journal of
Manpower, 26, 336–349.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological
need satisfaction. Work and Stress, 22, 277–294.
Wakkee, I., Elfring, T., & Monaghan, S. (2008). Creating entrepreneurial employees in traditional
service sectors. The role of coaching and self-efficacy. International Entrepreneurship
Management, 6, 1–21.
Yang, J.T. (2009). Individual attitudes to learning and sharing individual and organisational knowledge in the hospitality industry. The Service Industries Journal, 29, 1723–1743.
Yu, S.F., Gu, G.Z., Zhou, W.H., & Wang, S. (2008). Psychosocial work environment and well-being:
A cross-sectional study at a thermal power plant in China. Journal of Occupational Health,
50, 155–162.
Zacharatos, A., Hershcovis, M.S., Turner, N., & Barling, J. (2007). Human resource management in
the North American automotive industry – A meta-analytic review. Personnel Review, 36,
231–254.
Zarafshani, K., & Alibaygi, A.H. (2009). Predictors of job satisfaction among academics at an
Iranian university. Psychological Reports, 104, 633–644.